York shops go crackers

[yorkie]

A 22 year old from York has been told she is "too young" to buy crackers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7790877.stm

York Press also did a report and video on this madness York_stores_in_crackers danger madness before getting clarification of the law which says that there is no rule against youngeters buying crackers crackers to U16s (York_stores_can_sell_crackers_to_kids ) so the shops were inventing it all along!

So it's not just the railways where non-existent rules are invented

 

[theblackwatch]

So it's not just the railways where non-existent rules are invented

Non existent?

"The 1875 law banned the sale of fireworks to young children, but does not specify Christmas crackers. A series of laws introduced over the last 30 years have clarified the rules. Crackers and other novelties such as party poppers cannot be sold to anyone under 16."

(From
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...hristmas-crackers-student-explosive-risk.html)

 

[mrcheek]

Non existent?

"The 1875 law banned the sale of fireworks to young children, but does not specify Christmas crackers. A series of laws introduced over the last 30 years have clarified the rules. Crackers and other novelties such as party poppers cannot be sold to anyone under 16."

(From
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...hristmas-crackers-student-explosive-risk.html)

wow, what an impeccable source!!!

sounds like that 150 year old law about all rail services passing through Stockport having to stop there. a law which nobody can find any record of

 

[Craig]

Explosives Act 1875 section 31.

 

[Tom B]

Notice it's "apparently" under the age of 16 - no doubt a clause to generate several lawyers a small fortune in arguments...

 

[yorkie]

http://www.thepress.co.uk/search/3986556.York_stores_can_sell_crackers_to_kids/

However, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) said the Fireworks Safety Regulations 2004 were chiefly introduced to regulate the sale of “adult fireworks”, and while the situation is “ambiguous”, it “specifically excludes ‘cracker snaps’”.

A spokeswoman said: “The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 (which the 2004 law superseded) takes a similar line – crackers are not subject to the general prohibition on the supply of fireworks.”

However, in light of this new information, we will take this on board and review our policy with regards to selling Christmas crackers to under-16s.

 

[metrocammel]

I noticed a sign to this effect earlier this month, while paying tribute (!) to my local Woolworth's shop, there was an empty shelf with a sign saying 'We operate a policy checking ID if you attempt to buy crackers or party poppers and appear under 16' I thought it was absolutely crackers!! :P

 

[theblackwatch]

However, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) said the Fireworks Safety Regulations 2004 were chiefly introduced to regulate the sale of “adult fireworks”, and while the situation is “ambiguous”, it “specifically excludes ‘cracker snaps’”.

A spokeswoman said: “The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 (which the 2004 law superseded) takes a similar line – crackers are not subject to the general prohibition on the supply of fireworks.”

Wonder if this newspaper quote is correct? Will the HSE put this in writing and amend the Act?

 

[Metroland]

I do so often think rules are just made up to keep certain elements in jobs. Britain has been surviving by creating people with 'non-jobs' for decades. There are those that charge over the odds for a service, and the leeches that base their whole career on just taking a cut from other peoples work by acting as a middle man or interpretating the rules: Financial advisers, lawyers, financial services in general, publishers, some sales, some consultants:

The most extreme example has to be these pair:

Two solicitors from Doncaster have been accused of dishonestly taking cuts from compensation payouts for sick miners.

.....

The pair made millions of pounds from personal injury claims for miners under the Government's coal health compensation claim. The court heard that in one case the firm deducted a "success fee" from the widow of a miner, leaving her with a total payout of just £217.73.

The court heard that Beresfords expanded rapidly with the advent of the coal claims. By 2004 the firm had a gross profit of £8,758,743 and by 2006 the profit had risen to £36,205,805.

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/headlines/Solicitors-39made-millions-from-sick.4703155.jp

Then there are the companies that like to play capitalism in the good times, and plead poverty in the bad. Companies that make billions, but haven't saved enough for a rainy day and go cap in hand to the government for payouts - else we fire the staff!

I know if I was doing very well thank you very much, and had a bad year, and went to my parents for a bail out, exactly what they would say.

 

[Donny Dave]

I do so often think rules are just made up to keep certain elements in jobs. Britain has been surviving by creating people with 'non-jobs' for decades. There are those that charge over the odds for a service, and the leeches that base their whole career on just taking a cut from other peoples work by acting as a middle man or interpretating the rules: Financial advisers, lawyers, financial services in general, publishers, some sales, some consultants:

The reason there is all those needed is the amount of red tape created by governments.

With financial advisors, if your being charged over the odds for buying something through them, then chances are you've gone to the wrong one. Anyway, what's the difference between a PEP and SIPP? Or a Unit Trust and a Investment Trust?* Or even a Gilt or a Bond? If you don't know, then that's why you should find an advisor.

* Not aimed at you in particular Metroland, more of general questionaire for the rest of the forum as well

 

[Metroland]

While I'm sure everyone thinks they are worth every penny, there is no doubt that some of the groups above have very inflated salaries. While governments do create red tape, over regulation also comes from poor management, over management, technology for the sake of it, and gross over centralisation. One has to question whether what real value some of this is adding at least for the wider populace. Remember, economic growth does not necessarily mean it is being distributed equally, nor does it always lead to economic well being or quality of life.

1) It is now making some projects and taxes unaffordable.
2) There is a increasing diversion between rich and poor and flatting social mobility.
3) The basic social problems are not being solved, indeed in some cases exacerbated. Over management and regulation can lead to less personal responsibility.
4) The problem of risk aversion and risk management.

While I'm sure some of these stories are overplayed by the media, one does get the impression much of the above is about feathering ones own nest rather than a real desire to improve society in some cases ( see the solicitors case above ) - which is especially objectionable when you and me are paying for it and getting less bang for each buck.

 

[Broken Viking]

The most extreme example has to be these pair:
Two solicitors from Doncaster have been accused of dishonestly taking cuts from compensation payouts for sick miners.

The pair made millions of pounds from personal injury claims for miners under the Government's coal health compensation claim. The court heard that in one case the firm deducted a "success fee" from the widow of a miner, leaving her with a total payout of just £217.73.

That's truly dispicable in my view...Where in the name of the Gods did I put my Sword?

The reason there is all those needed is the amount of red tape created by governments.

While governments do create red tape, over regulation also comes from poor management, over management, technology for the sake of it, and gross over centralisation. One has to question whether what real value some of this is adding at least for the wider populace. Remember, economic growth does not necessarily mean it is being distributed equally, nor does it always lead to economic well being or quality of life.

I have a few simple ideas for resolving this problem, personally... 8)

1. Get rid of all of the following; NWNF (No win, no fee) services, Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers, Politicians, Civil-Servents and similar figures,
2. Allow people once more to bear close-combat arms of their choosing,
3. Reintroduce public law-keeping under the Babylonian principle of "an eye for an eye"...

If there's one thing that I'm sick of, it's all of this so-called "red tape"...And I'm in half a mind to take my own Blade to it - And the people who create it - In the Bloodiest, Goriest way... hock:

Indeed - The Vikings had the right ideas, and they all lived like kings. Yet in our so-called "modern" society today - A society that (In all honesty) is actually more primitive than the early side of the Dark Ages - We're all living like rats in a sewer. With todays technology and government, it figures I guess... :roll:

 

[djw1981]

It may not be against the law, but a shopkeeper also has a duty if care (i.e. not to sell something to someone who they think will use it form harm / endangerment) and also all shops can refuse to sell you anything without reason.

 

[Max]

It may not be against the law, but a shopkeeper also has a duty if care (i.e. not to sell something to someone who they think will use it form harm / endangerment) and also all shops can refuse to sell you anything without reason.

Yes, but there's also a fairly significant difference between a firework and a Christmas cracker! Then again, these places need to protect their backs, what with the 'suing culture' that has developed.

 

[Tom B]

However - as djw said they can refuse to sell it to you without giving you a reason.

 

[Mintona]

Shops can refuse to sell eggs if they think you are going to throw them around town.

However, in the example cited above, it sounds like an honest mistake, these things do happen.

 

[me123]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. The general rule about nowadays is to ID anyone who looks under 25 for any age restricted product and refuse the sale if they can't do it. Not a strict rule followed everywhere of course, but still.

The weirder one is teaspoons; my flatmate works in sainsburys and he was told you had to be 18 to buy teaspoons :? Probably something to do with drugs, but it seems a bit crazy to me.